For the sake of this review I'll assume that everyone knows about the, um, thing you shouldn't know about until you've seen this movie. If you don't know, then don't keep reading. Or go ahead and read it. But you've been warned.
To start with, a true story. We've had an informal tradition of taking Mom out to a movie on Mother's Day. This tradition really hasn't always gone well. 'City Slickers 2' might have been the low point. Or it might have been this one. My brother and I took her out to see it. We'd heard it was good. Not really mother and sons material, though.
And the biggest problem with this movie is that it should be better than it is. The early part of the story is interesting. IRA member becomes too close to a hostage. Is supposed to execute him but lets him get away only to see the hostage run down by the strike force coming to rescue him. Feels guilty about the entire situation and finds the hostage's girlfriend and decides to protect her.
And then the story goes off the rails. Out comes the penis and the rest of the movie is buried beneath the straight guy in love with a gay transvestite plot. And how can it not be? Being romantically in love with someone becomes pretty gender specific. Don't think so? Imagine your significant other coming home tonight and announcing that they've decided to have a sex change. Think that might throw a kink in your relationship? I think it just might.
Anyway, I remember being surprised when this movie was nominated for best picture. I felt at the time that the nomination must have had something to do with a positive portrayal of a transvestite. The movie seems to say that the genitalia shouldn't matter if they really love each other. That also skips over the question of if the two characters are really in love or just in convenient lust.
Not sure how to rate this overall. Most of it is good. It could have even gotten to great. But the central flaw is too big.
No comments:
Post a Comment